“A government instituted for peace and welfare of the people should be the last to give up on any measure intended for a just and lasting peace.”

Thus said Minnie Anne Calub of the National Council of Churches of the Philippines (NCCP), in a forum on the peace process.

Recently, however, various officials from the Government of the Philippines (GPH) have been expressing GPH’s intent to halt the peace negotiations with the Communist Party of the Philippines-National Democratic Front of the Philippines (CPP-NDFP) and resort to a “new approach” which they deem would be more productive than continuing the peace negotiations.

This has aroused great dismay from different Christian organizations and peace advocates in the country.

GPH chief negotiatior Alexander Padilla, Office of the Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process (OPAPP) Secretary Teresita Quintos-Deles, Defense Secretary Voltaire Gazmin and Presidential Spokesperson Edwin Lacierda all hinted about this “new approach” which involves “localized talks” under the framework of National Internal Peace and Security Plan (NIPSP) Oplan Bayanihan.

Various peace advocates, however, view this “new approach” as a betrayal of the previously signed agreements between GPH and NDFP like the Hague Joint Declaration of 1992.

As according to Rey Casambre of Philippine Peace Center, “This means that the Aquino government is running away from the GPH commitments and from the filipino people hoping that the peace talks would lead to just and lasting peace.”

Norma Dollaga from Pilgrims of Peace also expressed her growing disillusion with the government track on negotiating peace with the rebels. “If GPH will not honor the agreements that they have made thus far in peace talks with the NDF, how can they be trusted to honor subsequent major agreements especially in systemic reforms needed to deal a just and lasting peace?” she said.

Said Casambre about the localized peace talks under the “new approach”: “How can localized talks solve problems that are national in nature?” He added that economic policies are not made by provinces and regions, and must be examined and reformed in a national scale. This reforms, in turn are prerequisites to achieving genuine peace.

Bishop Elmer Bolocon from the Ecumenical Bishop’s Forum added that the Oplan Bayanihan framework is just an excuse for the government to solve the armed conflict through taking arms as well.

“Kahit na sinasabi ng pamahalaan na pro-human rights ang Oplan Bayanihan mukhang hindi yon ang nagaganap. (Even though the government says that Oplan Bayanihan is pro-human rights, it doesn’t look that way),” said Bolocon.

Oplan Bayanihan is a counterinsurgency program by the Aquino administration that runs from 2011 to 2016. It aims to “win peace” through non-combat strategies and providing social services to conflicted areas.

Human rights groups such as Karapatan, however, strongly criticized Oplan Bayanihan as a mere continuation of previous counter-insurgency programs of past administrations that resulted to massive human rights violations.

Roadblocks to peace

In a statement during the Foreign Correspondents Association of the Philippines (FOCAP) media forum, GPH’s Padilla said the presumed “death” of the peace process between the GPH and NDFP is the result of “endless roadblocks thrown by the NDF.”

Part of these “roadblocks” include the so-called precondition set by the NDFP to release their 14 NDFP consultants protected under Joint Agreement of Security and Immunity Guarantees (Jasig) before they come back to the table.

Peace advocates, however, clarified that the assertions made by NDFP such as the release of political prisoners are not a precondition. It is stated in The Hague Declaration that both parties, including the GPH shall make steps to build confidence on the peace process – the release of political prisoners, especially the 14 NDFP consultants, being only one step among many.

Dollaga said that it is not actually the NDFP “putting up the roadblocks.” She said they believe that the Aquino administration does not adhere to previously agreed upon pacts between the two parties.

This, in addition to the government’s insistence on pushing for their “new approach” kills the peace process and hinders peace altogether, Dollaga opined.

Genuine, lasting peace

Government officials also pointed out the NDFP’s alleged refusal to agree on a ceasefire before the start of formal talks. This after the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) last year signed a mutual ceasefire with GPH.

“Is the NDFP absolutely opposed to a ceasefire? Actually, no. The NDFP even proposed a truce which is stronger, more permanent and more productive than a ceasefire. Ang mas tanungin natin: Bakit ayaw ng GPH ’yung truce (The real question is: Why doesn’t GPH want a truce?),”  said Casambre.

He added that even though a ceasefire did happen between MILF and GPH, the reasons for the armed conflicts are not being addresed by the final agreements.

Casambre said that the Filipino people “do not just want a final negotiated peace agreement.” What we want, he said, is a final peace agreement that will result to a permanent peace, and one that addresses the very roots of the armed conflict.

“For a government that wants to walk the matuwid na daan (straight path), that’s not good enough. They should be making every effort to address the root causes [of the armed conflict],” said Sr. Pat Fox from the Religious Discernment of the Philippines.

“We pray for peace, but not a peace which includes a ceasefire. It’s not peace until the root causes of poverty, the root causes of the unrest are addressed. So we ask the government to take seriously the responsibility and continue the peace talks,” she concluded.